The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/Pages/pr_14 ... tions.aspx

The recommendations were made as a result of an investigation into Durham Constabulary which concluded the force missed opportunities to assess Michael Atherton’s suitability to remain in possession of his firearms and shotguns and to take action to remove them from him.

Atherton fatally shot his partner Susan McGoldrick, her sister Alison Turnbull and Alison’s daughter Tanya before turning the gun on himself in Horden, Peterlee, on Sunday, 1 January 2012.

The recommendations call for a uniform test of fitness to possess firearms and shotguns, reviews to be carried out during the term of the licence and for clear guidance and tighter restrictions in connection with applications where domestic violence has been a factor.

Reading the recommendations themselves, the IPCC are basically calling for certificates to be practically revoked (not revoked in the legal sense, worryingly) and a fresh grant process undertaken if the police decide they don't like you holding an FAC.

They're also recommending that at least one referee should include an ex-partner. Madness. Of course, there's no mention of legal liability for malicious ex-partners who provide false information.

The IPCC also recommend "achtung, firearm owner!" markers be put on your medical records. (lateral thought - it is possible to de-register from GPs altogether, isn't it?)

Of course, Durham Constabulary's failure to act against Atherton despite being called out no fewer than four times is neatly glossed over. It's those nasty firearms owners who should be targeted - and they say that police interactions which did NOT lead to a criminal conviction should be treated in the same way as actual convictions.

Completely unworkable in the form the IPCC has outlined. It will be ignored like most IPCC recommendations!

"On four separate occasions police were called to Michael Atherton’s home address in relation to domestic incidents, one of which resulted in Mr Atherton receiving his caution. Michael Atherton did not disclose his caution on his application for a shotgun certificate and a firearm licence. The application process for shotgun certificates and firearm licences do not require applicants to disclose cautions."

Err, since when?! I thought that EVERY brush with the law had to be disclosed and there was no such thing as a 'spent caution' for FAC/SGC applications?

A caution is a legal admission of guilt so has to be disclosed, there must be dozens of threads on several forums where people have forgotten to list a caution from 10 years ago and got pulled up by their FEO

I found this interesting as I certainly cannot recall a question specific to the drinking habits of the applicant on form FF103

Despite indicating on his application form for a shotgun certificate that he abstained from drinking, Michael Atherton’s interaction with the police both prior to and after the granting of his licences showed him to be intoxicated or in drink on every occasion.

Gaz wrote:They're also recommending that at least one referee should include an ex-partner. Madness. Of course, there's no mention of legal liability for malicious ex-partners who provide false information.

And what happens if you don't have a convenient ex-partner? I'm not sure a lass from primary school forty years ago is going to be able to give a very informed opinion of what I'm like now...

[quote]I found this interesting as I certainly cannot recall a question specific to the drinking habits of the applicant on form FF103/quote]

From memory, intemperance is a reason for refusal of grant or renewal, but I can't see a table for units drunk on the form. I'm guessing that this is a GP field or something that the FEO could find out. I know of several people that have had renewals refused on the grounds of drink driving or other alcohol related offences and these would fit into that category.

In short, Durham Constabulary messed up. They should be sanctioned not anyone else. Staff and train firearms departments properly and the risk of something like this happening again is greatly reduced. Oh how they love to over complicate stuff.

Its the same BS that happened with Hamilton, they knew he was an wrong 'un but didn't have the balls to revoke in case he won on appeal = lots of people dead and screaming 'useful idiots' helping the government further its civilian/subject disarmament plan and in the process providing a smokescreen to let the people who also had a hand in it get off scot free